C RAMALINGAM AND ORS Vs. COMMISSIONER AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.T.L. Ram Mohan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.S. Kandaswamy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.N. Varadarajan, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

(2.) The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent's in his impugned order dt. 30.01.2013 in his reference Na. Ka. No: 257/2012/A4 calling upon the petitioners to deliver the possession of the land and building premises bearing old Door No: 17, New No: 41, Luz Church Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004, comprised in Survey No: 3333 measuring 3321 sq.ft. on 01.03.2013 by terminating his lease hold right over the said property and quash the same and direct the respondents to hold an enquiry for fixing the fair rent in respect of the above leasehold land by giving opportunity to the petitioners to submit their objections according to law.

(3.) The case of the writ petitioners is that originally their predecessors in title obtained the lease hold right in respect of the land comprised in Survey No: 3333 measuring 3321 sq.ft. situated at old Door No: 17, New No: 41, Luz Church Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004, from the respondent temple and had constructed the building comprised of ground, first and second floors in the said leasehold land. Through their letter dated 03.05.2012, petitioners made it clear to the 2nd respondent that they may be given an opportunity for making their objections before fixing the fair rent in respect of the land tenancy portion. The petitioners were always willing to pay the just and reasonable rent for the land as fixed in accordance with law, keeping in view the fact that the building absolutely belonged to the petitioners. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent by his letter dated 20.06.2012 called upon the petitioners to give consent in respect of the fair rent proposed to be fixed by him. As the petitioners were not given an opportunity to make their objections and as the fair rent fixed by the 2nd respondent was unreasonable and exorbitant, petitioners did not give their consent. 2nd respondent sent a reminder on 26.09.2012 once again calling upon the petitioners to give their consent. Through their reply dated 08.10.2012, petitioners disputed the fair rent proposed to be fixed by the 2nd respondent on various grounds. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent sent his letter dated 12.11.2012 calling upon the petitioners to deliver land and building to him as they did not give their consent for the fair rent proposed by him. Ultimately, the 2nd respondent had passed the impugned order dated 30.01.2013 by determining the petitioners' tenancy and called upon them to deliver possession of the above property on 01.03.2013. Challenging the said order, petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition.